(3.5) Mage Slayer: worth it for me?

[Ianuagonde]

My human duskblade 13 is considering Mage Slayer from Comp. Arcane as the lvl 15 feat. However, it has a rather serious drawback in reducing my caster level by 4. For some of my spells, this hardly matters: Shocking Grasp, Resist Energy, Scorching Ray. However, other spells will get hurt. So I turn to the collective wisdom of the forum with my dilemma.

My feats: Combat Casting (duskblade bonus feat), Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Knockdown from SRD, Knowledge Devotion, Weapon prof: spiked chain.
My spells: lvl 1: Shocking Grasp, True Strike, Ray of Enfeeblement, Obscuring Mist, Resist Energy.
lvl 2: Touch of Idiocy, Dimension Hop, Scorching Ray, Melf's Acid Arrow.
lvl 3: Vampiric Touch, Greater Magic Weapon, Dispelling Touch, Regroup.
lvl 4: Enervation

Other info: I have a reliable source of Enlarge Person. Combined with Spiked Chain means 20 ft threatened area. We usually play until level 17-18, after which our characters retire.

So, do you think Mage Slayer is a good feat to take in this case, or should I just take something else?

Also, Mage Slayer prevents spellcasters from casting defensively. Does it work against spell-like abilities in the same way?

[Innis Cabal]

This class is never worth it really. Not as a spell caster ever. Your better off taking classes that open up your spell selection then cutting one of your most useful class abilities down.

[woodenbandman]

Nah. If you ever pick it up it's probably best you go all the way, and that's 3 feats and -12 caster level.

I agree with the above. Go into something that gives you more spells known.

[Ianuagonde]

Some more info that I should have included in the first post.

I'm going duskblade all the way. I'll be taking duskblade levels until I'm dead or retired, whatever happens first. I know this is a decision that won't make my character on par with Tier 1, and I have no intention to try and get there.

I would still like to know about my feat choice, however.

[arguskos]

It remains a bad decision. The hit to CL is painful, and really, if you're taking Mage Slayer, you should take all the feats in that tree and get -12. It hurts too much to justify taking as a caster of any kind.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I wouldn't take it.

[Epinephrine]

It depends on what you'd like to accomplish - and can you retrain a feat?

Personally, I could play down 4 levels of caster as a duskblade - you still have many effective ways to deliver damage and make yourself useful, and it's not like you are losing actual caster advancement. Your Vampiric Touch and Dispelling Touch would suffer. I suspect you'd be ok, but it's a hit to some good spells. On the other hand, you control a lot of space, and can trip people trying to leave that space. If your role in the group is to control spellcasters, I'd say take it.

If you can't live with the penalty, Practiced Spellcaster adds 4 to your caster level (to a maximum of your level), so you can counter the sacrifice for Mage Slayer with a second feat. Is preventing defensive casting worth 2 feats?


It remains a bad decision. The hit to CL is painful, and really, if you're taking Mage Slayer, you should take all the feats in that tree and get -12. It hurts too much to justify taking as a caster of any kind.

I'm not sure I follow the logic. If 4 levels hurts a bit, you may as well take 12 and kill your effectiveness completely? Duskblades aren't as dependent on pure caster level; they can do a lot with a lower caster level, since they are on the front line swinging a sword spiked chain. The caster level mostly matters for a bit of damage and some dispelling; if his role is more control-oriented, a small hit to damage output isn't as big a concern, or perhaps investing two feats to gain the control with no hit to damage output would be worth doing.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm not sure I follow the logic. If 4 levels hurts a bit, you may as well take 12 and kill your effectiveness completely?

I believe his point is that it's not really worth it to take just Mage Slayer; either you take them all (because getting through armor and concealment buffs is more worth it) or don't take any, don't just take one.

[arguskos]

I believe his point is that it's not really worth it to take just Mage Slayer; either you take them all (because getting through armor and concealment buffs is more worth it) or don't take any, don't just take one.
Precisely. Don't take Mage Slayer unless you are prepared to take the whole tree.

[Elfin]

Yea...the CL penalty really hurts, and in any case Mage Slayer isn't really worth it unless you get the whole tree.

[Eldariel]

Precisely. Don't take Mage Slayer unless you are prepared to take the whole tree.

For a controller, Mage Slayer alone is a great feat. But not if you're a caster yourself. If you've got a feat to burn on Practiced Spellcaster to make up for it, maybe, but you don't have feats to burn...

[arguskos]

For a controller, Mage Slayer alone is a great feat. But not if you're a caster yourself. If you've got a feat to burn on Practiced Spellcaster to make up for it, maybe, but you don't have feats to burn...
Yeah, but why NOT take the other feats if you aren't STARVED for them? They literally have no reason for you to not take the whole tree if you are already working on the first one.

[monkey3]

Personal opinions:
I feel strongly that Mageslayer is the strongest melee feat in the game. It is so good that for me it is worth 2 feats. Why do I say that? I think your Duskblade should take Mageslayer, and then take "practiced caster:duskblade" to offset the 4 caster levels that Mageslayer cost you.

Important note (fact, not opinion):
Mageslayer is worthless without reach. Otherwise, the enemy caster will just take a 5' step and cast with impunity.
Even with reach, you want to have a means of stopping an enemy caster from taking a move action to eat an AOO to move 20' away from you and cast with impunity.
I like "Improved Trip" as a means of stopping the opponent from running away, and reach as a way of making his 5' step irrelevant.

[Person_Man]

So, do you think Mage Slayer is a good feat to take in this case, or should I just take something else?

Also, Mage Slayer prevents spellcasters from casting defensively. Does it work against spell-like abilities in the same way?

I do not think that Mage Slayer is a good feat for any caster build, including this one. However, I'm a big fan of Mage Slayer for any high level non-caster build that uses a reach weapon. It can be ridiculously effective, IMO, particularly for Tome of Battle or Psionic classes.

Whether or not Mage Slayer works on spell-like abilities is up to your DM. I think it does. Spell-like abilities do require a Concentration check to avoid AoO. Mage Slayer states that "Spellcasters that you threaten cannot cast defensively." I think using a spell-like ability is pretty much the same as using a spell.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, but why NOT take the other feats if you aren't STARVED for them? They literally have no reason for you to not take the whole tree if you are already working on the first one.

Actually, I usually skip out on the other two but take Mage Slayer; I feel Mage Slayer is vastly more critical and powerful than the other two. If you're a controller, you're literally useless vs. casters without Mage Slayer.

Given that casters are pretty good, and controller is one of the better roles for a melee type, I find Mage Slayer to be one of the best feats ever. The +1 Will doesn't hurt either.


Pierce Magical Protection I find mediocre since it only allows a standard action attack with it. Pierce Magical Concealment is great, but costs two feats so I rarely fit it into my builds over more critical builds; I usually instead go for high enough Spot or True Seeing.

[arguskos]

See, I categorize that under the "I'm starved for feats" area. Pierce Concealment is so insanely good that whenever I've got something that would benefit from it and can take it, it always does so. It just seems to me to be so powerful and vital that it's always worth it.

Must be a matter of taste. It's not like it's lacking in quality really. :smallwink:

[Eldariel]

See, I categorize that under the "I'm starved for feats" area. Pierce Concealment is so insanely good that whenever I've got something that would benefit from it and can take it, it always does so. It just seems to me to be so powerful and vital that it's always worth it.

Must be a matter of taste. It's not like it's lacking in quality really. :smallwink:

Well, I'm usually having trouble fitting just Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Improved Trip/Knockback (depending on...yeah, depending), Combat Reflexes & al. so Pierce Magical Concealment takes secondary priority beyond what I find is absolutely critical.

I mean, I've yet to play a character not starved for feats. In fact, I think if you aren't starved for feats, you're playing with too few books or just aren't trying hard enough :smallsmile:

[arguskos]

Well, I don't personally toss ALL of that into one build. I do like going for Ultimate Weapon Mastery with the Mage Slayer tree and some scary reach weapons like the Spiked Cheese or something more exotic like the chain weapons from OA.

Shock Trooper tree-->Mage Slayer tree works fine. Weapon Mastery--> Mage Slayer tree is harder. Shock Trooper tree+Imp. Trip/Knockdown+Mage Slayer tree is starting to get greedy IMO.

Course, it helps that I buff melee significantly in my games, so it's not quite the same, but that's neither here nor there.

I'll go ahead and say that Mage Slayer is the best, but Concealment isn't worth disregarding IMO. If it can be worked in, I tend to feel that one should do so.

[Ernir]

I think it depends on your DM.

Do you often end up in the face of enemy casters? Have they been getting away from you only because they make their concentration checks to cast defensively?
If the answer is "yes, it happens all the time", then I say you take the feat.

If it is "no, it does not happen all that often", then I say you shouldn't.

[Melamoto]

Ask your DM if you can retrain your feats. Replace 1 of your feats with Mage Slayer. This will cripple you a bit for 2 levels. Then, at level 15, take Practised Spellcaster to boost yourself up to your normal CL.
It's a way to take Mage Slayer without reducing your CL, and I'll leave it at that.

[quick_comment]

Pierce magical protection is good on warblades, because you can use it on the maneuver recovery attack.

[Eldariel]

Pierce magical protection is good on warblades, because you can use it on the maneuver recovery attack.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather full attack usually.

[Rainbownaga]

Reading the CO boards, an optimized mage is just as likely to avoid AO without using concentration (e.g. tumble, dimension door, 5' steps, contingency, still spell, quickened spells, etc.) assuming you can even get into range. As long as you're fighting large numbers of unoptimized casters, it might be worth it. Maybe.

[Stompy]

Reading the CO boards, an optimized mage is just as likely to avoid AO without using concentration (e.g. tumble, dimension door, 5' steps, contingency, still spell, quickened spells, etc.) assuming you can even get into range. As long as you're fighting large numbers of unoptimized casters, it might be worth it. Maybe.

Abrupt Jaunt, Anklets of Translocation... (EDIT: This usually works, but not against this guy so reliably.)

If you don't have the practiced spellcaster feat with you, that's a -4 to CL meaning that you'll be 20% less likely to get through SR. Most of your spells allow SR, and the lower effectiveness to pierce SR sounds really bad at that level in the game.

[Eldariel]

Reading the CO boards, an optimized mage is just as likely to avoid AO without using concentration (e.g. tumble, dimension door, 5' steps, contingency, still spell, quickened spells, etc.) assuming you can even get into range. As long as you're fighting large numbers of unoptimized casters, it might be worth it. Maybe.

That consumes their resources though. Well, aside from 5' step and Tumble, both of which you negate via. Thicket of Blades. Still Spell does nothing to stop Mage Slayer (you still provoke regardless of whether the spell has Somantics or not) meaning they need to use their Contingencies or Quickened spells, meaning you've wasted an action and one of their "get out from the jail for free"-cards from them.

Better yet, in case you ready an action to disrupt any spell they're casting, you can cut them off from anything but Contingency, which you frankly can do nothing about. The principal issue with all this is getting within fighting distance of the caster in the first place, but that's what you've got a party for; when it's impossible for you, your Wizard can position you in a favorable place with a quickened spell (say, Benign Transposition) where you can lock the opposing side down as efficiently as possible while also trying to e.g. Dispel the Contingencies first or some such to hopefully enable a total lockdown.

[Rainbownaga]

Incidentally, remember not to charge the wizard with your spiked chain. RAW you have to attack as soon as you're in range meaning the can stand up and take a 5' step out of your zone of control.

@ Epinephrine
OP doesn't have thickets of blades. For some reason I also thought that you could avoid AoO's with concealment, but I can't find it anywhere- must have imagined it.